#203Almalieque,
Posted:Aug 29 2013 at 3:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

Weight is pretty objective. It can be trivially measured. We have long since determined what weight ranges healthy people should be in. We know there are negative health effects of being significantly underweight.

To contrast, changing one's body to match their gender typically comes with various health benefits.

Quote:

Because I'm smart enough to realize that the meaning is more important than the word attached to it, what is the conceptual difference between the two words that you mean to say? (decide vs choice)

No. 100x no. You do not ever have a constitutional right to require someone else to pay for something for you. Period. End of story.

Of course you do. You have the right to imprisonment free of cruel or unusual punishment which would include the right to be adequately fed, watered and sheltered during your incarceration.

But that's not the same as having a broad right to free food, water, and shelter. It means that the government takes on the responsibility to ensure that you are not suffering cruel and unusual punishment while you are incarcerated. I think (hope?) we can all agree that lack of basic needs required for survival constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but not providing free *** change operations doesn't. ****. It's not even close.

No. 100x no. You do not ever have a constitutional right to require someone else to pay for something for you. Period. End of story.

Of course you do. You have the right to imprisonment free of cruel or unusual punishment which would include the right to be adequately fed, watered and sheltered during your incarceration.

But that's not the same as having a broad right to free food, water, and shelter. It means that the government takes on the responsibility to ensure that you are not suffering cruel and unusual punishment while you are incarcerated. I think (hope?) we can all agree that lack of basic needs required for survival constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, but not providing free *** change operations doesn't. ****. It's not even close.

I'm going to guess (or at least dare to hope) that most people don't approach prison from a philosophy that we should make it as terrible as we could possibly make it without it being cruel or unusual.

And, that said, I wouldn't be willing to say that enabling subsistence is all that's required for a punishment not to be cruel or unusual.

Weight is pretty objective. It can be trivially measured. We have long since determined what weight ranges healthy people should be in.

Just playing devils advocate here, but can't we say the same thing about *** (the physical state) and gender (the perceived state)? I mean, if someone is objectively/measurably skinny, but views themselves as fat, how is that really different from someone who is objectively/measurably a male, but view themselves as female. We can certainly say that we have long since determined what physically makes someone a male or a female, so it's not like this comparison is way off.

Quote:

To contrast, changing one's body to match their gender typically comes with various health benefits.

That's questionable IMO. At the very least, that's an incredibly subjective argument to make. I'd argue that for most people, adopting a gender view that matches their physical body will be the most healthy for them in the long run. And for that tiny percentage of people who can't do this, there really isn't sufficient empirical evidence to suggest that *** change actually helps them. And the current movement going on to identify and allow for gender identity mismatches at earlier and earlier ages is (again IMO) probably going to result in more screwed up people than otherwise.

I'm going to guess (or at least dare to hope) that most people don't approach prison from a philosophy that we should make it as terrible as we could possibly make it without it being cruel or unusual.

It is supposed to be punishment.

Quote:

And, that said, I wouldn't be willing to say that enabling subsistence is all that's required for a punishment not to be cruel or unusual.

In the context of "things we're required to provide for them to not be cruel and unusual", yes it is. Obviously, the punishment could include other things we do to the prisoners that are cruel and unusual, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about things which if the government does not provide to a prisoner automatically makes their imprisonment cruel and unusual. Food, water, and shelter obviously fall into that category. *** change operations clearly do not.

No, I would say a life that is condemned to only meet the minimum standards for subsistence is well, well past the mark of cruel and unusual. Sort of why we no longer throw people into dungeons.

[EDIT]

And my stance is going to be the same as it has been this entire time. If a psychologist rules that SRS is vital to someone's mental well being, I'm going to say they should be provided it. And I'm inclined to say it would be cruel and unusual not to.

If doctors rule that it is unnecessary for their well being, then perhaps not.

I'm kind of curious why the prison doesn't support any type of hormone treatment, etc. I mean, is it too unproven, new, approval is lost in bureaucracy, security issues, unintended consequences, or is there even a good reason beyond "it hasn't come up much really", or blah, blah, blah whatever? Not condemning the fact that is isn't supported, just more wondering what they'd have to say about the matter.

Just playing devils advocate here, but can't we say the same thing about *** (the physical state) and gender (the perceived state)?

Gender isn't the perceived state of one's ***.

Quote:

I mean, if someone is objectively/measurably skinny, but views themselves as fat, how is that really different from someone who is objectively/measurably a male, but view themselves as female. We can certainly say that we have long since determined what physically makes someone a male or a female, so it's not like this comparison is way off.

It is way off. If a male views themselves as female, then they're wrong. *** is, in 99%+ of cases (including for trans people), pretty straight forward to determine. Obviously once someone starts to to change their ***, it's not really clear when/if they ever truly become the other ***, but before that, it's pretty easy. So sure, if someone believes their *** to be something that it's not and we can easily determine what it is, then they're wrong, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise. However we aren't talking about ***, we're talking about gender.

Quote:

I'm kind of curious why the prison doesn't support any type of hormone treatment, etc. I mean, is it too unproven, new, approval is lost in bureaucracy, security issues, unintended consequences, or is there even a good reason beyond "it hasn't come up much really", or blah, blah, blah whatever? Not condemning the fact that is isn't supported, just more wondering what they'd have to say about the matter.

Just playing devils advocate here, but can't we say the same thing about *** (the physical state) and gender (the perceived state)?

Gender isn't the perceived state of one's ***.

Um... That's exactly what it is (barring the whole circular use of the word '***' of course). When a person perceives themselves as male and their physiological traits (genitals) are male, then both their gender and *** are male. If one perceives themselves as female, but their physiological traits are male, then their gender is female and their *** is male. We can go around and around with the labels we apply, but the difference between *** and gender is that *** is physiological, while gender is psychological. What one physically is, versus what one thinks they are (or feels they are, or whatever snowflaky term you wish to use).

Quote:

It is way off. If a male views themselves as female, then they're wrong. *** is, in 99%+ of cases (including for trans people), pretty straight forward to determine. Obviously once someone starts to to change their ***, it's not really clear when/if they ever truly become the other ***, but before that, it's pretty easy. So sure, if someone believes their *** to be something that it's not and we can easily determine what it is, then they're wrong, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise. However we aren't talking about ***, we're talking about gender.

Yes. Did you just misread what I wrote? I just talked out this exact distinction between *** and gender and you insisted that's not what gender was.

The difference is between perception and reality. Period. A transgender perceives themselves to be something other than their physical *** indicates. It's why we even bother with making a distinction between gender and *** in the first place. And guess what? This is analogous to a skinny person who thinks they are fat. For whatever reason, the person perceives themselves to be different than their actual physical state.

The difference is between perception and reality. Period. A transgender perceives themselves to be something other than their physical *** indicates. It's why we even bother with making a distinction between gender and *** in the first place. And guess what? This is analogous to a skinny person who thinks they are fat. For whatever reason, the person perceives themselves to be different than their actual physical state.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's also the cause of the incorrect perception that you'd want to take into account. Two things that have similar symptoms may have very different sources? Cataracts and nearsightedness can both make it hard to see stuff, but have different sources, and you may want to address them differently because of that.

The difference is between perception and reality. Period. A transgender perceives themselves to be something other than their physical *** indicates. It's why we even bother with making a distinction between gender and *** in the first place. And guess what? This is analogous to a skinny person who thinks they are fat. For whatever reason, the person perceives themselves to be different than their actual physical state.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's also the cause of the incorrect perception that you'd want to take into account.

I'm not sure that within this context you can apply the word "incorrect" to the perception. We could also say that someone who identifies themselves as female despite having male genitalia is "incorrect" in their perception of themselves as female, right? If "correct" and "incorrect" means whether their self image matches their actual physical image then a transgender is always "incorrect", just as someone who thinks they're fat when they're physically skinny is also "incorrect".

The point I'm making is that this is fundamentally the same kind of thing, and both would historically have been seen as a psychological disorder, but today we're told that one is not, while the other still is. I'm asking "why?" Isn't the distinction purely arbitrary?

Quote:

Two things that have similar symptoms may have very different sources? Cataracts and nearsightedness can both make it hard to see stuff, but have different sources, and you may want to address them differently because of that.

I'm not sure that within this context you can apply the word "incorrect" to the perception.

True, it was just the first word that hopped to mind I suppose, my bad.

gbaji wrote:

The point I'm making is that this is fundamentally the same kind of thing, and both would historically have been seen as a psychological disorder, but today we're told that one is not, while the other still is. I'm asking "why?" Isn't the distinction purely arbitrary?

Which is why I brought cause, are they distinguished because they have a different source? Honestly I don't know. If we go off the review article linked earlier then science would label GID as a kind of irreversible birth defect. I don't know if that's the same with someone who thinks their skinny, but is actually obese.

The root cause being important, because that will ultimately influence treatment options.

Weight is pretty objective. It can be trivially measured. We have long since determined what weight ranges healthy people should be in. We know there are negative health effects of being significantly underweight.

To contrast, changing one's body to match their gender typically comes with various health benefits.

You didn't answer the question. How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

Rachel wrote:

Would you prefer i used the word "determine"?

No, I would like for you to answer the question. Obviously you don't ignore the meanings of words. So, instead of you misusing different words, I want to know the the conceptual difference between the two words that you mean to say? (decide vs choice).

Gbaji wrote:

Sorry, but I don't think I am. Gender has no meaning *unless* it's about how someone thinks or feels versus what their physical biology is. If that's not what gender is, then what is it?

This. Rachel only argues the real definition of gender when people misuse it. Then when people use it's real definition against him, then he starts referring to ***. When you accept that definition referring to ***, then he says "It's nothing to do with your genitals!". Completing the circle.

It's really quite simple. Since your gender is in reference to your mentality and not your physical state, then there is no need to do physical treatment.

That one. Trans people are not generally under any delusions about their ***.

Quote:

Sorry, but I don't think I am. Gender has no meaning *unless* it's about how someone thinks or feels versus what their physical biology is. If that's not what gender is, then what is it?

Fixed.

Quote:

We could also say that someone who identifies themselves as female despite having male genitalia is "incorrect" in their perception of themselves as female, right? If "correct" and "incorrect" means whether their self image matches their actual physical image then a transgender is always "incorrect", just as someone who thinks they're fat when they're physically skinny is also "incorrect".

No, because transgender people simply have a gender that does not match that of most people of the same ***. We are not confused about what our *** is.

Quote:

You didn't answer the question. How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

Weight is pretty objective. It can be trivially measured. We have long since determined what weight ranges healthy people should be in. We know there are negative health effects of being significantly underweight.

To contrast, changing one's body to match their gender typically comes with various health benefits.

You didn't answer the question. How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

Well, that's probably more a question for a health professional. But likely the second one of course. Still, from what a quick google turned up it's likely not a very good comparison to GID. Because for anorexia:

Quote:

Most experts believe the condition is caused by a combination of psychological, environmental and biological factors, which lead to a destructive cycle of behaviour.

whereas for GID:

Quote:

During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous *** at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

That's the problem with GID, you can't fix it, you're irreversibly programmed that way. Anorexia may be fixed through therapy (especially if it's due to stress or something like that), GID can't be. You can't help someone "see their true gender" (i.e. seeing their gender match their ***) it doesn't work that way. There's always going to be a disconnect. You don't want to attempt the same treatment on 2 disorders that have different root causes.

That one. Trans people are not generally under any delusions about their ***.

Same thing. You evaluate this based on your perceptions which is based on your brain. You think you should have a female body. You don't. Your brain thinks it should. It's not more or less a delusion than any other issues with the brain. This causes dissonance. One way to fix it is to fix your brain. We don't really know how to do that though, so some people will learn to be at peace with the discord, some people will try and change their body to reduce the discord.

That one. Trans people are not generally under any delusions about their ***.

Same thing. You evaluate this based on your perceptions which is based on your brain. You think you should have a female body. You don't. Your brain thinks it should. It's not more or less a delusion than any other issues with the brain. This causes dissonance. One way to fix it is to fix your brain. We don't really know how to do that though, so some people will learn to be at peace with the discord, some people will try and change their body to reduce the discord.

Thinking something should be isn't really the same as thinking it is. There's also a lot more to it than that. Many trans people don't wish to change their body.

That one. Trans people are not generally under any delusions about their ***.

I don't think anyone said they were.

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry, but I don't think I am. Gender has no meaning *unless* it's about how someone thinks or feels versus what their physical biology is. If that's not what gender is, then what is it?

Fixed.

Um... Except that when *** and gender are at odds, then the last part of what I said applies. And since we're specifically speaking about that case, it's relevant. We only make a distinction between *** and gender when they don't match.

I'd also like to point out that this is precisely what I meant by "perception" versus "reality". Reality being what someone's physical body is (ie; their ***). Perception being what they think or feel (their gender). I never meant to suggest that a transgendered person actually perceives their physical body to be other than it is. The point I was making is that they don't believe that this physical state makes them "male" or "female", just as someone with an eating disorder doesn't believe that their weight and gauntness (or even near skeletalness) makes them "skinny". In their minds, they are fat, no matter what their physical body looks like. In that case "fat" no longer refers to the physical state, in the same way that "male" or "female" no longer applies to the physical state when speaking of gender.

We just don't have a separate word to use in the case of an eating disorder.

Quote:

Quote:

We could also say that someone who identifies themselves as female despite having male genitalia is "incorrect" in their perception of themselves as female, right? If "correct" and "incorrect" means whether their self image matches their actual physical image then a transgender is always "incorrect", just as someone who thinks they're fat when they're physically skinny is also "incorrect".

No, because transgender people simply have a gender that does not match that of most people of the same ***.

And why is that not "incorrect"? If we define incorrect to mean "someone who's mental perception of themselves doesn't match their physical selves", then it's incorrect.

Quote:

We are not confused about what our *** is.

Sure. Because we've created different terms to make the distinction. One could argue that you are confused because our gender should match your ***. I really think this is just a matter of terminology. If we created two imaginary terms like "blah" and "bloh", we could say that "blah" refers to someone's physical body type, and "bloh" refers to what people think about themselves, we could then also say that someone could have a fat blah, but a skinny bloh (or vice versa). And it would be exactly as legitimate a distinction as saying someone can have a male *** and a female gender. It's circular. We created the terms in order to identify that state. The absence of terms to identify analogous states in other context does not make one more or less "correct" than the other.

Quote:

Quote:

You didn't answer the question. How would you resolve a problem with an underweight woman who views herself as overly obese? Would you help her lose more weight? Or would you help her see her true size?

The second one.

Yet you'd help person who has a male *** and female gender change the *** to match the gender. Do you see how that's inconsistent?

Or is it more about political correctness? If a woman were obese, but viewed herself as skinny, would you applaud her for her positive attitude?

Because I'm smart enough to realize that the meaning is more important than the word attached to it, what is the conceptual difference between the two words that you mean to say? (decide vs choice)

Rachel wrote:

Still, from what a quick google turned up it's likely not a very good comparison to GID. Because for anorexia:

Didn't say that the woman had anorexia. I know people who eat regularly, but are still underweight and see themselves as fat. They don't starve themselves, they just overly work out and eat "healthy".

SPG wrote:

That's the problem with GID, you can't fix it, you're irreversibly programmed that way. Anorexia may be fixed through therapy (especially if it's due to stress or something like that), GID can't be. You can't help someone "see their true gender" (i.e. seeing their gender match their ***) it doesn't work that way. There's always going to be a disconnect. You don't want to attempt the same treatment on 2 disorders that have different root causes.

Since when is a "no known cure" been a barricade for a cure? Even if that were the case, then you accept it as one does mental retardation, because you can't ever make a man to a woman and vice-versa. If a trans FEELS better about mutilating their body, with a known pseudo procedure, then mental therapy is a solution. If you lie to yourself about your *** in one direction, then you can lie to yourself about your *** in another direction.

Finally, this what I don't understand. How are homosexuals considered "normal", but transgenders are tagged with a disorder? What is the "norm" that we are using to determine if one has a disorder or not? How do we know that the "transgenders" are right and everyone else are the true "transgenders", given that the term "gender" is an subjective term that we recently created.

Still, from what a quick google turned up it's likely not a very good comparison to GID. Because for anorexia:

Didn't say that the woman had anorexia. I know people who eat regularly, but are still underweight and see themselves as fat. They don't starve themselves, they just overly work out and eat "healthy".

Okay fair enough, what does she have? I'm not a doctor here, you'll have to at least give me a hypothetical diagnosis before I can look up a treatment.

Almalieque wrote:

SPG wrote:

That's the problem with GID, you can't fix it, you're irreversibly programmed that way. Anorexia may be fixed through therapy (especially if it's due to stress or something like that), GID can't be. You can't help someone "see their true gender" (i.e. seeing their gender match their ***) it doesn't work that way. There's always going to be a disconnect. You don't want to attempt the same treatment on 2 disorders that have different root causes.

Since when is a "no known cure" been a barricade for a cure? Even if that were the case, then you accept it as one does mental retardation, because you can't ever make a man to a woman and vice-versa. If a trans FEELS better about mutilating their body, with a known pseudo procedure, then mental therapy is a solution. If you lie to yourself about your *** in one direction, then you can lie to yourself about your *** in another direction.

Well I'd suspect we're working hard on a cure. Us scientists never sleep right? As for lying to yourself one way versus the other, you may have to look that one up. I'm only reading the science. I have no idea why the treatment is effective, or what it's success rate is, only that it seems to be accepted by many health professionals as a valid treatment.

Almalieque wrote:

Finally, this what I don't understand. How are homosexuals considered "normal", but transgenders are tagged with a disorder? What is the "norm" that we are using to determine if one has a disorder or not? How do we know that the "transgenders" are right and everyone else are the true "transgenders", given that the term "gender" is an subjective term that we recently created.

(edit out that bit, they look pretty close to this layman) Perhaps it'd help not to worry so much about what it's called, these names don't always reflect reality. Which is unfortunate at times, because it can get really confusing for the rest of us.

Okay fair enough, what does she have? I'm not a doctor here, you'll have to at least give me a hypothetical diagnosis before I can look up a treatment.

That's the question. What does she have? Why would she be labeled with a disorder? She isn't starving herself, she just see herself as fat, when she clearly isn't. What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone has a disorder?

SPG wrote:

Well I'd suspect we're working hard on a cure. Us scientists never sleep right? Smiley: wink As for lying to yourself one way versus the other, you may have to look that one up. I'm only reading the science. I have no idea why the treatment is effective, or what it's success rate is, only that it seems to be accepted by many health professionals as a valid treatment.

I'm not at your scientific level *yet*, but the truth is that those transformations are known pseudos. They know that their sexes are still the same, they just FEEL better about it. It's like wearing a fake Rolex watch or fake Coach purse. If we can be satisfied with a knock-off, then we can be satisfied with another brand, because what we have aren't the real things to begin with.

There might not be a readily available mental solution now, but the fact that a transsexual/gender can feel better after a known pseudo operation, says that it is definitely possible.

SPG wrote:

(edit out that bit, they look pretty close to this layman) Perhaps it'd help not to worry so much about what it's called, these names don't always reflect reality. Which is unfortunate at times, because it can get really confusing for the rest of us.

Exactly. People are unable to label something as is, disagree with it and respect it at the same time. As a result, people play with words, altering definitions and meanings to adhere to certain agendas. It makes no sense to label transgenders with disorders and not homosexuals, especially given that a noticeable percentage of homosexuals take on the opposite gender roles anyway. Likewise with heterosexuals. It becomes completely hypocritical to label people with certain disorders based on gender stereotypes. That completely contradicts the purpose of the word gender in the first place.

Okay fair enough, what does she have? I'm not a doctor here, you'll have to at least give me a hypothetical diagnosis before I can look up a treatment.

That's the question. What does she have? Why would she be labeled with a disorder? She isn't starving herself, she just see herself as fat, when she clearly isn't. What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone has a disorder?

Yeah, I'm not really qualified to do these guessing games. Who labeled her with a disorder and what was their reasoning? A real doctor would be able to spend a lot more time with a person and diagnose the problem, that's not something I could do normally, much less based on a couple of sentences of description. I can only tell you what it sounds like (hence my anorexia guess, was the best I could come up with), and look up what the accepted treatments are. The rest is more or less up to the medical professionals to use their best judgement and experience to determine these things.

Almalieque wrote:

SPG wrote:

(edit out that bit, they look pretty close to this layman) Perhaps it'd help not to worry so much about what it's called, these names don't always reflect reality. Which is unfortunate at times, because it can get really confusing for the rest of us.

Exactly. People are unable to label something as is, disagree with it and respect it at the same time. As a result, people play with words, altering definitions and meanings to adhere to certain agendas. It makes no sense to label transgenders with disorders and not homosexuals, especially given that a noticeable percentage of homosexuals take on the opposite gender roles anyway. Likewise with heterosexuals. It becomes completely hypocritical to label people with certain disorders based on gender stereotypes. That completely contradicts the purpose of the word gender in the first place.

Yeah, I'd just add in there's a lot of these things that work their way into literature in a backwards manner as well, with no ill intent. Things initially identified and labeled by their symptoms may well end up being called something different once a root cause is determined. Maybe in 10 years this will be treated differently too, in the meantime we just stick with what the experts say and work with it.

Yeah, I'm not really qualified to do these guessing games. Who labeled her with a disorder and what was their reasoning? A real doctor would be able to spend a lot more time with a person and diagnose the problem, that's not something I could do normally, much less based on a couple of sentences of description. I can only tell you what it sounds like (hence my anorexia guess, was the best I could come up with), and look up what the accepted treatments are. The rest is more or less up to the medical professionals to use their best judgement and experience to determine these things.

You are overlooking my point. Why are you even considering it a disorder in the first place? Based on what? Do you consider overweight people who call themselves "big boned" to have a disorder? Is denial a disorder? We don't always see ourselves the same way others see ourselves. So, if there's dissonance between the two, does that justify labeling someone with a disorder?

SPG wrote:

Yeah, I'd just add in there's a lot of these things that work their way into literature in a backwards manner as well, with no ill intent. Things initially identified and labeled by their symptoms may well end up being called something different once a root cause is determined. Maybe in 10 years this will be treated differently too, in the meantime we just stick with what the experts say and work with it.

When we live in a society of political correctness and political favor, it would be foolish for someone to accept such a conclusion at face value when obvious contradiction is glaring you in the face.

Yeah, I'm not really qualified to do these guessing games. Who labeled her with a disorder and what was their reasoning? A real doctor would be able to spend a lot more time with a person and diagnose the problem, that's not something I could do normally, much less based on a couple of sentences of description. I can only tell you what it sounds like (hence my anorexia guess, was the best I could come up with), and look up what the accepted treatments are. The rest is more or less up to the medical professionals to use their best judgement and experience to determine these things.

You are overlooking my point. Why are you even considering it a disorder in the first place? Based on what? Do you consider overweight people who call themselves "big boned" to have a disorder? Is denial a disorder? We don't always see ourselves the same way others see ourselves. So, if there's dissonance between the two, does that justify labeling someone with a disorder?

At this point I'm calling it a disorder because you told me it was a disorder, I assumed you had a reason for that. If you just made something up, called it a disorder and are asking me to justify it, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Almalieque wrote:

SPG wrote:

Yeah, I'd just add in there's a lot of these things that work their way into literature in a backwards manner as well, with no ill intent. Things initially identified and labeled by their symptoms may well end up being called something different once a root cause is determined. Maybe in 10 years this will be treated differently too, in the meantime we just stick with what the experts say and work with it.

When we live in a society of political correctness and political favor, it would be foolish for someone to accept such a conclusion at face value when obvious contradiction is glaring you in the face.

If you were an established M.D. who actively researched GID, I'd say you have a very valid point. At this point, because I'm guessing you have basically no medical training, I'm going to just assume any contradiction is more likely to be due to your lack of knowledge about the subject rather than any shortcomings in the field. I may very well be wrong about this, but there seems to be a body of literature out there that suggests this is a thing, that they've researched it a lot, and these are the best treatments they have for it at the moment. If you'd like to point to some peer reviewed stuff that backs up the assertion that this is all hogwash I'd be more than happy to educate myself. I'd be perfectly willing to change my opinion in light of new facts.

At this point I'm calling it a disorder because you told me it was a disorder, I assumed you had a reason for that. If you just made something up, called it a disorder and are asking me to justify it, I'm afraid I can't do that.

I don't recall stating it a disorder, but if I did, I misspoke. I didn't make anything up. In my experiences, women in general tend to view themselves larger than what they are. Do all of those women have disorders? Does every man who claims to play as good as Michael Jordan have a disorder, i.e. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James? What about the people who believe that they are good singers, i.e. American Idol?

What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone who views themselves differently than how society views them has a disorder?

SPG wrote:

If you were an established M.D. who actively researched GID, I'd say you have a very valid point. At this point, because I'm guessing you have basically no medical training, I'm going to just assume any contradiction is more likely to be due to your lack of knowledge about the subject rather than any shortcomings in the field. I may very well be wrong about this, but there seems to be a body of literature out there that suggests this is a thing, that they've researched it a lot, and these are the best treatments they have for it at the moment. If you'd like to point to some peer reviewed stuff that backs up the assertion that this is all hogwash I'd be more than happy to educate myself. I'd be perfectly willing to change my opinion in light of new facts.

1. I have neural science training, but not nearly enough to consider myself much more educated on the subject than the average educated person. Also, more on the computational side and not the psychological side.

2. I never argued that what was mentioned was hogwash, but the labeling of one cross dresser as a disorder and not the other. There was no scientific mentioning of homosexuality being or not being a disorder. When I asked Rachel to differentiate his meanings between decide and choose, he conveniently disregarded.

3. You don't have to be expert to see contradiction. Scientists say that global warming is a big deal. Scientists say that global warming is not a big deal. I don't have to study global warming to see that is a contradiction. This applies to almost any scientific study. That is why ethics is very important.

What are the benchmarks being used to determine if someone who views themselves differently than how society views them has a disorder?

I don't know, from what I can tell it's based on the opinion of a medical professional, and more likely many medical professionals once they all start to see some of the same symptoms. I imagine there's a fair degree of opinion and gray area in the process.

Almalieque wrote:

3. You don't have to be expert to see contradiction. Scientists say that global warming is a big deal. Scientists say that global warming is not a big deal. I don't have to study global warming to see that is a contradiction. This applies to almost any scientific study. That is why ethics is very important.

Indeed

However there's always contradictions in science, that's the nature of the beast. There are differences in how studies are done, there are things one side considered but not the other, the are different methods that may or may not be viable that need to be evaluated. Let's take the global warming thing, there's peer reviewed stuff out there casting doubt on the whole subject. Some of that has never been backed up by outside labs, some of it has and the ideas have been incorporated into other peer review papers along the whole spectrum of researchers. I say spectrum because it's probably a bit foolhardy to view it in a black and white fashion, as with basically all science it isn't that easy. The point is to look at the contradiction, try to determine why there is one, and reconcile it. You may have to accept seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence for a long time before you get an explanation. Often times it disappears upon further study, many times it doesn't, you may end up with more contradictions and questions as you go along just for fun.

Anyway, my train of thought is runaway or something, so ya... I'm going to pull over here for a bit and try and get my bearings.

I don't know, from what I can tell it's based on the opinion of a medical professional, and more likely many medical professionals once they all start to see some of the same symptoms. I imagine there's a fair degree of opinion and gray area in the process.

You and I see the world very differently. I believe most medical/biological professions aren't normally interested in such topics until there's a social/political desire.

SPG wrote:

You may have to accept seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence for a long time before you get an explanation.

Maybe as a scientist, but you can't expect society to accept contradictions in the same manner. As a scientist who supposed to remain objective, it's easy to say "we don't know yet". As a normal citizen, people tend to choose sides. People are naturally more subjective.

I don't know, from what I can tell it's based on the opinion of a medical professional, and more likely many medical professionals once they all start to see some of the same symptoms. I imagine there's a fair degree of opinion and gray area in the process.

You and I see the world very differently. I believe most medical/biological professions aren't normally interested in such topics until there's a social/political desire.

Yeah, I don't doubt there's political undercurrents afoot in places, we have to get funding from somewhere. Overall though, and it's just my subjective observations, I'd say we tend to be more motivated by helping people on the level I see at least. You see people suffer or die, you want to stop that, you do the best job you can. That can certainly be manipulated by people. *shrugs*

Almalieque wrote:

SPG wrote:

You may have to accept seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence for a long time before you get an explanation.

Maybe as a scientist, but you can't expect society to accept contradictions in the same manner. As a scientist who supposed to remain objective, it's easy to say "we don't know yet". As a normal citizen, people tend to choose sides. People are naturally more subjective.

Mmm hmm, and it's tough. Nothing fun about having some data you put out getting misinterpreted or twisted to suit someone else's purposes. Of course, like you say, most people don't react well to someone saying "There's about a 65% chance this is the cause, so we're going ahead with it. Some of it doesn't make sense, but we're hoping that sorts itself out later (conservative red flag there), here's your drugs." We're always dealing with these things on a going forward basis, because well, people don't stop suffering and dying while you sit around and work out the details.

Yeah, I don't doubt there's political undercurrents afoot in places, we have to get funding from somewhere. Overall though, and it's just my subjective observations, I'd say we tend to be more motivated by helping people on the level I see at least. You see people suffer or die, you want to stop that, you do the best job you can. That can certainly be manipulated by people. *shrugs*

You're right. I just don't think that the average person sees homosexuals/transgenders/sexuals as people who are suffering. As a result, "looking for a cure", means that you're already biased into thinking that there is a problem in the first place. I'm sure there are people who would objectively study it, but as you say, funding has to come from somewhere. Given that I would argue that the average person deem that topic as "personal lifestyles", people probably aren't naturally studying it without some sort of bias, one way or the other.

Yeah, I don't doubt there's political undercurrents afoot in places, we have to get funding from somewhere. Overall though, and it's just my subjective observations, I'd say we tend to be more motivated by helping people on the level I see at least. You see people suffer or die, you want to stop that, you do the best job you can. That can certainly be manipulated by people. *shrugs*

You're right. I just don't think that the average person sees homosexuals/transgenders/sexuals as people who are suffering. As a result, "looking for a cure", means that you're already biased into thinking that there is a problem in the first place. I'm sure there are people who would objectively study it, but as you say, funding has to come from somewhere. Given that I would argue that the average person deem that topic as "personal lifestyles", people probably aren't naturally studying it without some sort of bias, one way or the other.

Well no, you can never eliminate bias. You rather hope for a preponderance of evidence from many different groups. In a perfect world there a good spread of bias there, and it cancels itself out. In the real world, we're left speculating from time to time if we suspect something. As for the suffering/dying thing there's levels of depression and suicide that are far above average in the group. You see a correlation and want to determine the cause, and now you're going down the rabbit hole. Best thing you could be studying? I don't know, but people go that route.

Well no, you can never eliminate bias. You rather hope for a preponderance of evidence from many different groups. In a perfect world there a good spread of bias there, and it cancels itself out. In the real world, we're left speculating from time to time if we suspect something.

People grow up saying "I want to cure 'cancer'/AIDS/etc." I doubt there is a noticeable percentage of people genuinely interested in the biological make up of homosexuality. It gets thrown in with "different strokes for different folks".

SPG wrote:

As for the suffering/dying thing there's levels of depression and suicide that are far above average in the group. You see a correlation and want to determine the cause, and now you're going down the rabbit hole. Best thing you could be studying? I don't know, but people go that route.

People suffer from AIDS and various forms of cancer. People don't suffer from homosexuality. Suicide is another whole other scenario that all boils down to the lack of self-worth. It's possible to talk someone out of committing suicide without even knowing what the problem is. There are a number of homosexuals who are happy, hence the word ***, and not suicidal. Given that fact, it's safe to say that there are other social factors that lead to suicides. In that large number of homosexual suicides, how many of them killed themselves solely because of their sexuality that did NOT include any negative social influence, i.e. ridicule, but had a loving family and friend environment.

Rachel wrote:

What? No i didn't.

Rachel wrote:

Because I'm smart enough to realize that the meaning is more important than the word attached to it, what is the conceptual difference between the two words that you mean to say? (decide vs choice)

Post 202 and 205. If you want a more in depth response, please ask for that, instead of repeating the same question.

Quote:

In that large number of homosexual suicides, how many of them killed themselves solely because of their sexuality that did NOT include any negative social influence, i.e. ridicule, but had a loving family and friend environment.

Post 202 and 205. If you want a more in depth response, please ask for that, instead of repeating the same question.

1. You literally quoted the same definition that I provided for the word decide. 2. You then provided the definition for judgement, not choice 3. You never addressed the question in the second post either, but did just the opposite. I specifically said that instead of arguing over specific words, tell me the conceptual differences between "deciding" to be *** vs "choosing" to be ***. Providing another possible word does exactly the opposite of what I asked for.

There's a reason why I keep asking the same question, because you never answer it.